For the ethical case “A Congressman’s Past”, exaggerated truth without definite sources is the subject of question. The question is whether or not to publish a story about Congressman David Wu, enlightening truths about his past without legitimate sources. If it were me, I would pursue the story but would not publish it. I would purse it simply out of curiosity, but on my own time. There are various reasons why I wouldn’t, and they all include aspects of affecting perception or a person’s image.

The Congressman would clearly be the most affected. He could lose his spot as a Congressman, and his reputation could be tarnished forever. I understand that he did a bad thing in the past, but he worked hard to have his position removed due to an incident of over 20 years ago. If there were more incidents and various people coming forward to confess what happened to them, then I would consider publishing the story. However, his story seems to pan out since his ex-girlfriend did not pursue filing a case against him further.

The ex-girlfriend would also be affected. Her life will not be the same since she will be followed for quotes, or more information from other news organizations. Beyond that, if this incident is something she has worked toward forgiving and forgetting, bringing it up again would probably only drag her down. If 20 years have passed without this woman speaking up again, I don’t think it is worth the trouble unless she wants it to be.

Also, I would not want to tarnish my own reputation as a writer over a story with indefinite sources. It would only make me look unpolished and immature. It would create the illusion that I accomplish things half-way, and if the story pans out to not be true, I would only look like a lair. So, all in all, I would not tarnish my reputation unless the ex-girlfriend asked me to look further. Then, maybe I would simply to get the truth.

The question is then, is it a reporter’s primary obligation to tell the truth?

My response: yes.

It is a reporter’s obligation to tell a story as it is. This means, no opinions (unless asked for), no exaggerated truths, or adding to the story. The plain and simple truth of the 5 Ws and H is what a reporter is responsible for. They are responsible for informing the public without bias.

With “A Congressman’s Past”, it seems morally simple to just publish the article on David Wu and have him pay for his actions. It seems simple because that is the truth. However, it seems to be an unsupported truth with two sides- Wu’s side and his ex-girlfriend’s side. It is a he-said, she-said case, and there is usually no evidence in that. The truth for both of them is what it is and what they thought happened, but that might not be the real truth. The reporter is responsible for the real, full truth, not half of it.